Indeed, which is why using it as a tuple function call makes the most sense for tuples, the first element being an atom that is the module that the 'fetch' function should be called on, if not an atom then the match fails, thus consistent with normal tuple call syntax. :-)
On another note, is there really no Elixir'ish array module. I used maps before but it was taking almost thirty seconds to generate some of these reports, replaced it with erlangs array module and it fell to <1s, so I made a replacement module but I would really love not to have to upkeep it, especially if one already exists elsewhere. :-) On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-6, José Valim wrote: > > As a protocol it would be considered to have no tuple implementation >> though, of which I could then supply. >> > > Yes and no. You could but it wouldn't be semantically correct. What if > someone else implement their own "fake" data type with tuples and want to > use the tuple implementation? It wouldn't compose and the code would just > fail. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-talk/8966be00-63e9-4c9a-9ef5-7615f9f5f8cb%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
